Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Obama's Is A Failed Presidency

Originally Posted by evensaul

Obama's Failed Libya Policy Now Threatens Europe

Libya's Muammar Qaddafi kept millions of Africans from crossing the Mediterranean and flooding into Europe. Obama has admitted that his policy on Libya was a failure because he did not plan for what would happen after Qaddafi was gone. Now we see the consequences of Obama's failures in Libya, Syria and Iraq, as ISIS and other militant Islamists are forcing hundreds of thousands of Africans to flee across the Med, with millions more likely to follow. ISIS operatives could easily cross with the refugees to prepare for attacks against Rome, The Vatican and other European cities.

I don't know where you got this conspiracy theory from but you're making the mistake of believing Gaddafi's claims. But since you do then you have to also realize that the case against Obama is not solid at all.

After your first link describing Gaddafi's request for money, Europe followed up with:

In August, Muammar Gaddafi said the EU should pay Libya at least €5bn a year to stop irregular African immigration and avoid a "black Europe". This month, Cecilia Malmström, European commissioner for home affairs, and Stefan Füle, European commissioner for neighbourhood policy, met with Libyan authorities to close a deal on migration and asylum. According to the European Commission, the EU's financial support to Libya will amount to a total of €50m over the next 3 years.
(Source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-libya-gaddafi)

That is, Gaddafi got practically nothing of what he asked for. Since you believe Gaddafi you also have to believe that he really needed €5bn, which means that the €16m he did get was practically useless. So your premise that Gaddafi was able to do anything about migrants immediately fails - he didn't have the funds anyway.

Your entire case rests on very flimsy claims by a known liar who didn't get the funding he wanted to (i.e. your case falls apart on facts) and even if he did get the funding, do you really believe he would spend all on migrants rather than his own luxuries!

I think you need to formally withdraw this or formally support your case that Gaddafi:

a) honestly had the intentions to stop the migrants
b) was truly capable of stopping them
c) actually did so despite not receiving the funds he requested
d) (if you read the rest of the article, stopping them pretty much meant killing them)

Re: Obama's Is A Failed Presidency

From the third article: "The number of Africans caught trying to illegally enter Italy fell by more than 75 percent that year. (after the deal)"

And the undeniable fact is that the huge numbers of refugees crossing the Med started because of Obama's policy to remove Qaddafi, with no plan to stabilize Libya or prevent refuges from heading towards Europe.

JJ, you've got absolutely nothing to work with on this one.

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

Re: Obama's Is A Failed Presidency

From the third article: "The number of Africans caught trying to illegally enter Italy fell by more than 75 percent that year. (after the deal)"

No, you are misreading that. The reduction not after the 2010 deal - he was pointing to an earlier 2009 deal as an example of how Libya could help. From your own article:

He pointed to his work with Italy as proof he could get the job done. In June 2009, he signed a "friendship" agreement with Italy that involved joint naval patrols against migrants and Italy handing over migrants captured en route to Europe to Libya, no questions asked. The number of Africans caught trying to illegally enter Italy fell by more than 75 percent that year.

In building their friendship agreement, Berlusconi and Gaddafi seem to be regarding migrants and asylum seekers from other countries as expendable. The deal enables Italy to dump migrants and asylum seekers on Libya and evade its obligations while Libya gets investment, bolstered security infrastructure and acceptance as Italy's friend and partner...
Libya has not signed the 1951 Refugee Convention and does not have a domestic asylum law.
...
More than 50 migrants and asylum seekers in Malta and Italy whom I interviewed in May told me consistent stories of being held indefinitely in overcrowded, dirty conditions in Libyan detention centres, mistreatment by guards and collusion between smugglers and police.
...
By treating Libya as a human dumping ground, how can Italy and the EU not expect that Libya in turn will treat these people as refuse?

So even the 2009 case is hardly Libya preventing migrants - it's just Italy's dumping ground to return unwanted people, which Libya was under zero obligation to treat well. This isn't something to be proud of in humanitarian terms.

And the undeniable fact is that the huge numbers of refugees crossing the Med started because of Obama's policy to remove Qaddafi, with no plan to stabilize Libya or prevent refuges from heading towards Europe.

That may well be undeniable but that's not your logic chain which begins with Gaddafi being a proven bulwark against African migrants. Since he wasn't, even in the 2009 case, nor could he have (since he didn't get the funding) and unlikely would have (him being a lying, womanizing, greedy dictator), I think your chain of logic falls apart at its very foundation. I am suggesting that you remove it and get to your real point that it's Obama's fault.

JJ, you've got absolutely nothing to work with on this one.

Well, if you agree that Gaddafi really has zero role in the migrant reduction, I will agree that you can shift goal posts and blame Obama directly for the numbers. But before we get to dismantle that argument, you need to withdraw that Gaddafi really had or would have had any serious impact on the numbers. If you don't withdraw it you need to support it, which thus far, you haven't.

Re: Obama's Is A Failed Presidency

Originally Posted by evensaul

I think the evidence shows that he was a bulwark against refugee crossings. Your disagreement is noted, but you haven't rebutted any of the basic points in my post.

Yet you claimed it was a bulwark after the 2010 deal. This is not true. It isn't even true he was a bulwark then - he was a dumping ground for mistreating refugees - that's not solving the problem of migration, it is hiding it.

I have rebutted your first point that Gaddafi would have had any effect whatsoever on the migrants into Europe - it was your first point onto which the remainder of your argument rested. Not only have you failed to provide proof he did anything at all regarding that, it is clear that you are being contradictory in believing he did in the past (which he didn't) whilst still believing he could have, even after he got very little of the funds he asked for: how could have have done anything if he had no money!?

Your point is completely rebutted from several angles. Your only response was to misread his 2009 argument! So my rebuttals remain in force - the onus is still on you that he would have or could have reduce migrants into Europe. You have zero facts to support your case here. The other points will be dealt with but until you agree to remove Gaddafi's role your entire chain of argument fails at the very first step.

Obama's Is A Failed Presidency

From the third article: "The number of Africans caught trying to illegally enter Italy fell by more than 75 percent that year. (after the deal)"

No, you haven't.

Rant on, JJ. I'm just going to ignore you.

Meh, typical response of someone exposed as having zero facts to support their poor arguments against Obama. Not only did you fail to read your own sources, you misunderstood them and didn't do basic research. I suggest you get your news source from actual news organizations rather than a paper run by a church.

When the Mukhabarat, Libya's dreaded secret police, came for Mustafa Fauzi his immediate reactions were fear followed by resignation. He had already undergone a brutal experience in prison for human trafficking and this time his ordeal was bound to be even worse.

The trepidation rose when his blindfold was removed. Sitting across the table in the harshly lit bare room, dried blood from past interrogations on the walls, was the same officer who had been in charge of his previous case.

But, along with the proffered cigarette, the man had surprising news for Mr Fauzi: not only was he not going to be charged over the latest offence, there was also an invitation to carry on with his work. Muammar Gaddafi wanted to send 100,000 African migrants to Europe, he was told, and it was his patriotic duty to help.

This was at the end of May and Mr Fauzi was among the members of people-smuggling gangs encouraged to carry out Gaddafi's threat of switching back on the tap of illegal entrants in retaliation for Nato's backing the rebels and bombing his forces. The result was a tide of men and women, infants and the elderly being shipped across the Mediterranean in leaky boats and the resultant tragedy of dozens of dead bodies washing up on Europe's southern shores.

It seems that the right's attacks on Obama strangely rest on supporting people with terrible human rights records. Carry on I say - they're easy to debunk and expose as a partisan reimagining of facts.

Re: Obama's Is A Failed Presidency

The freedom scores are based on polling data from 2013 indicating citizens’ satisfaction with their nation's handling of civil liberties, freedom of choice, tolerance of ethnic minorities, and tolerance of immigrants. Polling data were provided by Gallup World Poll Service. The index is notable for the way it measures how free people feel, unlike other freedom indices that measure freedom by comparing government policies.

“This is not a good report for Obama,” Legatum Institute spokeswoman Cristina Odone told the Washington Examiner.

In the 2010 report (which relied on data gathered in 2009), the U.S. was ranked ninth in personal freedom, but that ranking has since fallen to 21st, with several countries, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom passing the U.S.

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

Re: Obama's Is A Failed Presidency

OBAMA'S LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE WORST IN 38 YEARS

A record 93,626,000 Americans 16 or older did not participate in the nation’s labor force in June, as the labor force participation rate dropped to 62.6 percent, a 38-year low, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Re: Obama's Is A Failed Presidency

President Obama's attempt to remove Syria's Bashar al-Assad from power is an utter failure, and it is such a bad idea that our military's Joint Chiefs of Staff is working covertly to counter the negative effects of Obama's policy.

...‘Our policy of arming the opposition to Assad was unsuccessful and actually having a negative impact,’ the former JCS adviser said. ‘The Joint Chiefs believed that Assad should not be replaced by fundamentalists. The administration’s policy was contradictory. They wanted Assad to go but the opposition was dominated by extremists. So who was going to replace him? To say Assad’s got to go is fine, but if you follow that through – therefore anyone is better. It’s the “anybody else is better” issue that the JCS had with Obama’s policy.’ The Joint Chiefs felt that a direct challenge to Obama’s policy would have ‘had a zero chance of success’. So in the autumn of 2013 they decided to take steps against the extremists without going through political channels, by providing US intelligence to the militaries of other nations, on the understanding that it would be passed on to the Syrian army and used against the common enemy, Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State... http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour...ry-to-military

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

Re: Obama's Is A Failed Presidency

Evan, you are conflating two things. His on-the-job performance v. his overall job as President.

In other words,
Let's suppose President A promises x,y, and z. Let's suppose he delivers x and y, but not z.
Let's suppose President B promises x,y, and z. Let's suppose he delivers z, but not x and y.

Can we make any qualitative statements regarding which President had more success? Hint, the correct answer is no. After all, we do not know how important x,y, and z are relative to one another. How does this relate to your claim and your examples? Well, was removing Assad a key campaign promise made by Obama? Would removing him result in a better or worse situation in Syria? In other words, how important was removing Assad to President Obama and, even if it is deemed important, would it bring a positive change? The answer to the first question is, it really wasn't that high on his to-do list. The answer to the second question is much more difficult to answer and the primary reason I tend to not evaluate Presidents while still in office. We don't really get to see the fruits of a Presidents labor until years later.

Let's look at the global satisfaction score and pretend it means exactly what it claims to mean. Are you putting the blame for this score entirely on Obama? What would this score be if Romney were President? Would it have been lower or higher? In fact, we have no way of knowing. I'd say that sort of statistic could be interesting to view trends, but it is of no value when trying to assess a single President's policies.

Hopefully, my anti-Obama credentials are enough to persuade you that I am not homering for Obama, but genuinely believe serious debate about his overall presidency is a tad premature.

The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

Re: Obama's Is A Failed Presidency

Obama's failures are many, and can be looked at collectively or individually. We can look at failures in office along with failed campaign promises. I see no reason to wait fifty years when the failures are evident now.

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

Re: Obama's Is A Failed Presidency

Originally Posted by evensaul

OBAMA'S LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE WORST IN 38 YEARS

A record 93,626,000 Americans 16 or older did not participate in the nation’s labor force in June, as the labor force participation rate dropped to 62.6 percent, a 38-year low, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

We have this thing called an aging population. That means every year a greater and greater percentage of us are retired. We also have more kids going to college than we used to who also are not in the labor force. What matters are the people who want jobs but can't get them or those who can't get jobs they are well qualified for.

Re: Obama's Is A Failed Presidency

Originally Posted by Sigfried

We have this thing called an aging population. That means every year a greater and greater percentage of us are retired. We also have more kids going to college than we used to who also are not in the labor force. What matters are the people who want jobs but can't get them or those who can't get jobs they are well qualified for.

Well that isn't exactly the case here though. The participation rate of those in the retirement bracket has increased rather than decreased, meaning more of them are staying in the work force longer:

I agree with you that what matters is whether people want work or not. The only problem is that we don't really have a measure of that perfectly because so many people have completely dropped out of the labor force and as such don't count as "looking" even if they would want one if available.

We should also consider the related metric of whether or not we are producing enough to offset the decrease in participation. It would be one thing for the rate to change because people are deciding to live simpler lives. It is quite another to be doing so because of cost disincentives and subsidies that must be produced by another worker.

"Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton

Re: Obama's Is A Failed Presidency

Originally Posted by evensaul

Obama's failures are many, and can be looked at collectively or individually. We can look at failures in office along with failed campaign promises. I see no reason to wait fifty years when the failures are evident now.

Well, if you can tell me how his policies will look 50 years from now, then your crystal ball is much better than mine. I think it is wasn't until about 4 years after Bush left office that we began to really see how disastrous his foreign policy had been. Or look at something like the housing bubble burst. This had roots in policy decisions that began in the 1970's. The Berlin wall didn't come down until after Reagan had left office. Shouldn't that be included when we discuss his legacy and successes/failures? It is too simplistic to make some arbitrary claim of failure using stats framed within a given window because; first, Presidents are not that powerful and second, what looks good now can look terrible five years from now and vice versa.

I agree with you that what matters is whether people want work or not. The only problem is that we don't really have a measure of that perfectly because so many people have completely dropped out of the labor force and as such don't count as "looking" even if they would want one if available.

We should also consider the related metric of whether or not we are producing enough to offset the decrease in participation. It would be one thing for the rate to change because people are deciding to live simpler lives. It is quite another to be doing so because of cost disincentives and subsidies that must be produced by another worker.

Whenever a graph's origin isn't zero, then I become suspicious. You are looking at swings of +/- 3%. So, I don't think you can claim the rise/fall is dramatic. To your point, though, it does not look like retirement is driving the numbers as Sig suggested. But, his argument is that more kids are going to college, lowering the participation rate of young people. So, maybe you both have valid points and maybe Obama isn't the oracle of Oahu nor is he the butcher of wall street. Perhaps, like his galactic predecessor, Zaphod Beeblebrox, he's just this guy, ya know?

The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

Re: Obama's Is A Failed Presidency

Originally Posted by Ibelsd

Well, if you can tell me how his policies will look 50 years from now...

Yes, yes, time gives a better perspective. But it is just silly to argue that we can't make some appraisals now. And it is a logical fallacy (though I can't find it right now) to argue that we must have more information and better perspective before rendering judgement. We will NEVER have complete information or a perfect perspective no matter how long we wait. You may consider everything I argue in this thread as being qualified with "Given what we know right now...".

We also have more kids going to college than we used to who also are not in the labor force.

Says who?? I'm finding the opposite:

THE proportion of new American high school graduates who go on to college — a figure that rose regularly for decades — now appears to be declining.

Last October, just 65.9 percent of people who had graduated from high school the previous spring had enrolled in college, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said this week. That was down from 66.2 percent the previous year and was the lowest figure in a decade. The high point came in 2009, when 70.1 percent of new graduates had gone on to college.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/bu...lege.html?_r=0

Last edited by evensaul; December 22nd, 2015 at 07:41 AM.

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

Re: Obama's Is A Failed Presidency

Originally Posted by evensaul

Yes, yes, time gives a better perspective. But it is just silly to argue that we can't make some appraisals now. And it is a logical fallacy (though I can't find it right now) to argue that we must have more information and better perspective before rendering judgement. We will NEVER have complete information or a perfect perspective no matter how long we wait. You may consider everything I argue in this thread as being qualified with "Given what we know right now...".

It is usually considered a bad idea to judge history before it has actually become history. You are not make some appraisals. You are declaring Obama's presidency as having failed. You could say it appears as though it will end up a failure. You can say that you believe we'll look back on his Presidency in 10 years and declare it a failure. However, simply saying that right now it is a failure is sort of absurd. I've already offered the rational reasons why it is absurd including real world examples.

The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

Re: Obama's Is A Failed Presidency

Originally Posted by Ibelsd

It is usually considered a bad idea to judge history before it has actually become history. You are not make some appraisals. You are declaring Obama's presidency as having failed. You could say it appears as though it will end up a failure. You can say that you believe we'll look back on his Presidency in 10 years and declare it a failure. However, simply saying that right now it is a failure is sort of absurd. I've already offered the rational reasons why it is absurd including real world examples.

Your argument just isn't very convincing. For example, having it publicly known that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are covertly undermining Obama's stated goal of removing al-Assad will never be considered anything other than a failure of his leadership and his foreign policy.

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

While more older people are working (by some 3%) the percentage in that age range is increasing significantly. In 2015 17.7% of the us population were 65+ In 1980 it was 14.5% by 2050 its expected to be 25% of the population. Unless the elderly start working in droves, were going to see ever lower total labor force participation rates.
Numbers from this link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/05/art2full.pdf
Note at the bottom of that article is a "dependency index"

Last October, just 65.9 percent of people who had graduated from high school the previous spring had enrolled in college, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said this week. That was down from 66.2 percent the previous year and was the lowest figure in a decade. The high point came in 2009, when 70.1 percent of new graduates had gone on to college.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/bu...lege.html?_r=0[/INDENT]

That is in the recent decade, over a longer period of time its been rising dramatically. In the 1980s we had around 24-25% of young people in college, today its in the 40-45% range, a pretty big bump. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/dat...about-to-burst (you can find the chart in question here)
Now the article asks if this college bubble is about to burst and this is an article from a year back, but overall rates are up significantly over the span of time we are discussing here (since the 1970s based on the article you posted)

Re: Obama's Is A Failed Presidency

Originally Posted by Sigfried

While more older people are working (by some 3%) the percentage in that age range is increasing significantly. In 2015 17.7% of the us population were 65+ In 1980 it was 14.5% by 2050 its expected to be 25% of the population. Unless the elderly start working in droves, were going to see ever lower total labor force participation rates.
Numbers from this link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/05/art2full.pdf
Note at the bottom of that article is a "dependency index"

Doesn't refute that younger people not entering the workforce (ie don't find a job after school) and those dropping out of the workforce NOT due to age have a much greater impact than aged retirees. It all amounts to a non-recovery of the labor market under Obama's watch. His policies have failed to improve employment.

Originally Posted by Sigfried

That is in the recent decade, over a longer period of time its been rising dramatically. In the 1980s we had around 24-25% of young people in college, today its in the 40-45% range, a pretty big bump. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/dat...about-to-burst (you can find the chart in question here)
Now the article asks if this college bubble is about to burst and this is an article from a year back, but overall rates are up significantly over the span of time we are discussing here (since the 1970s based on the article you posted)

Which is all irrelevant to employment numbers during Obama's watch. If anything, those numbers prove that Obama has failed to increase college enrollment with a capital F, because enrollment has been declining since he took office.

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan